No conflict between God and science

[Polymath257]

In the West the foundation of science came from Christian ideas that nature was regular and could be studied, that is no problem. There are things where conjecture is all there can be however and that conjecture can only be naturalistic conjecture, which I guess is fine but if God did it then that never going to even be a conjecture even after 1000 years of study and science determining naturalistic answers which cannot be tested but which are the best that science can do.

The basic problem isn't that the 'God Hypothesis' cannot be considered. It is that it cannot be tested.

Testability means that if you are wrong, there is an observation that would show that.

So, if you postulate that God did something, what observation would show you are *wrong*?

The Bible has predictions more remarkable than the predictions of where a solar eclipse will be and when. That is no more than mathematical calculations. Some Biblical prophecies are about someone knowing what will happen and when with no mathematical calculations involved.

Really? All of them I have seen are either 1) obvious, 2) after the fact (but some are re-written to appear to be earlier), or 3) vague enough that multiple interpretations are allowed.

Most of the 'prophesies' about a Messiah fall into the 'vague' category. Prophesies about 'wars or rumors of wars' fall into the 'obvious' category. And a good number of 'prophesies' predicting historical events were actually written *after* those events.

 

[Polymath257]

It would be great if the posts on this forum had reference back to the post they were answering.
However science starts treading on the toes of religious beliefs when for example it starts giving answers to how life came to be on earth when science does not even know what life is and what our consciousness is but answers are always naturalistic answers that speak as if they have the answers.

Life is a different thing than consciousness. We have a pretty good handle on what life is. It is a complex network of chemical reactions that is able to reproduce itself, grow, and maintain internal state.

We know a great deal about the chemistry of life and thereby the necessary chemistry of early life.

Consciousness is another thing, but it came much later than life did, so we can wait on that issue.

I would also point out that scientists do NOT claim to have the answers. It is religion that claims to have the answers, but cannot provide the details.

Science, however, takes what is known about life and uses that knowledge to figure out how things were in the past. It also uses records from the past (fossils) to control its understanding.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For example?

It would be great if the posts on this forum had reference back to the post they were answering.

I do not understand. You quote my post (#74) and seem to complain about a lack of reference, but that post clearly references your post #69.

However science starts treading on the toes of religious beliefs when for example it starts giving answers to how life came to be on earth when science does not even know what life is and what our consciousness is but answers are always naturalistic answers that speak as if they have the answers.

To argue that the origins of life should be deemed out of scope is just silly.
To complain that science - the informed and disciplined expression of methodological naturalism - is offering "naturalistic answers" is to complain that science is doing science, something that is equally silly. In fact, if and when science cannot offer such (provisional) answers, it should simply shut up.

I'm a big fan of Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA and I find that it is far more likely to be religion that engages in trespass.

 

[Trailblazer]

If the scriptures show the message is meant to be the truth, then it remains the truth. If the scriptures show the message is meant to be for all time and apply to everyone, then the message does not change.

I believe the Bible is the truth, and remains the truth. Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible is God's greatest testimony to His creatures, so as God's testimony it has to be the truth.

In an essay about the Bible written by a Baha'i scholar he concluded:

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible
(Rosebery, Australia: Association for Baha'i Studies Australia, 1996)

The authoritative position about the Bible from the UHJ is as follows:

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet....

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
(From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice)

 

[gnostic]

As are "how" and "why" important so is "who" for human inquisiteness/curiousness . If science cannot deal "who", it only tells that science is not a proper tool for it.

Regarding to your claim to “who?”...

Not in Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences.

Physical Sciences involved in the following main branches:

1. Physics
2. Chemistry
3. Earth Science
4. Astronomy

Each of those branches, are multi-disciplines, with different fields and subfields.

Natural Sciences include everything in the above list for Physical Sciences, plus Life Science, which are multi-disciplines, eg biology, biochemistry, zoology, botany, evolution, genetics, etc.

But so that you would understand, here is the list of Natural Sciences:

1. Physics
2. Chemistry
3. Earth Science
4. Astronomy
5. Life Science

In both Natural and Physical sciences, in order for concepts to be considered “science”, they must pass all 3 fundamental requirements:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

Social Sciences don’t need to follow the above criteria.

If you want to discuss or debate about WHO in sciences, then it might fall into one of the many branches, fields and subfields of Social Sciences.

Social Sciences involved in many areas, to wide to list them all, but here are the few that I can think at the top of my head:

1. Psychology
2. Sociology
3. Anthropology (which also fall under Humanities)
4. Archaeology (which also fall under Humanities)
5. Political science
6. Economics

And many more. They are involved the studies of human behavior, human cultures, and human activities.

Then there are non-science disciplines or studies, that fall under the broad branches, fields and subfields, which fall under the broad umbrella category: Humanities.

Humanities include the following:

1. Languages
2. Literature
3. Art
4. Music
5. History
6. Archaeology (which can under Social Sciences)
7. Anthropology (which can under Social Sciences)
8. Geography (human geography)
9. Politics
10. Law
11. Ethics, moral
12. Philosophies
13. Religion (eg theology, comparative religions)

And many more.

Languages involved many fields, including philology, which is study of old written languages.

Humanities and Social Sciences related in some ways, like I have included archaeology and anthropology in both Social Sciences and Humanities. For instances, archaeology is multi-discipline studies, including translations of ancient inscriptions or literature, which would fall under the category of Languages, like the field in philology. So the part where archaeologists try to translate ancient texts involved philology, hence Humanities, not Social Science. It is the same with ancient or prehistoric objects discovered that involved artwork, eg painting, sculpture, etc, would make archaeology fall under the humanities category, not social science.

For all creationists, and some theists, who may not understand Natural Sciences so well. The theory of Evolution or Evolutionary Biology, like Natural Selection, Mutations, Genetic Drift, etc, is biology, but Social Darwinism has nothing to do with biology or with theory of Evolution.

Social Darwinism is a political and social ideology: Social Darwinism doesn’t even meet the requirements to fall under the Social Science category.

Like I said, Natural Sciences needs to meet certain criteria (eg Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review) to be considered science, but Social Sciences don’t, and Humanities are science at all.

And in Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences, they required evidence - physical evidence - that can observed/detected, quantified, measured and tested.

Can you measure God? Can you observe and test God?

If you answer “no” to the above questions, then God or gods are irrelevant to science, when it come to studying biology or physical cosmology.

This is why the WHO questions is not asked in Physical Sciences or Natural Science, because something like god cannot be observed, measured and tested.

If you want to study God or anything pertaining to God, like religions or religious texts (eg Bible, Qur’an, the Book of the Dead, Veda, or any exegesis literature, etc), then try Theology or try Comparative Religion or Comparative Mythology.

 

[paarsurrey]

Regarding to your claim to “who?”...

Not in Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences.

Physical Sciences involved in the following main branches:

1. Physics
2. Chemistry
3. Earth Science
4. Astronomy

Each of those branches, are multi-disciplines, with different fields and subfields.

Natural Sciences include everything in the above list for Physical Sciences, plus Life Science, which are multi-disciplines, eg biology, biochemistry, zoology, botany, evolution, genetics, etc.

But so that you would understand, here is the list of Natural Sciences:

1. Physics
2. Chemistry
3. Earth Science
4. Astronomy
5. Life Science

In both Natural and Physical sciences, in order for concepts to be considered “science”, they must pass all 3 fundamental requirements:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

Social Sciences don’t need to follow the above criteria.

If you want to discuss or debate about WHO in sciences, then it might fall into one of the many branches, fields and subfields of Social Sciences.

Social Sciences involved in many areas, to wide to list them all, but here are the few that I can think at the top of my head:

1. Psychology
2. Sociology
3. Anthropology (which also fall under Humanities)
4. Archaeology (which also fall under Humanities)
5. Political science
6. Economics

And many more. They are involved the studies of human behavior, human cultures, and human activities.

Then there are non-science disciplines or studies, that fall under the broad branches, fields and subfields, which fall under the broad umbrella category: Humanities.

Humanities include the following:

1. Languages
2. Literature
3. Art
4. Music
5. History
6. Archaeology (which can under Social Sciences)
7. Anthropology (which can under Social Sciences)
8. Geography (human geography)
9. Politics
10. Law
11. Ethics, moral
12. Philosophies
13. Religion (eg theology, comparative religions)

And many more.

Languages involved many fields, including philology, which is study of old written languages.

Humanities and Social Sciences related in some ways, like I have included archaeology and anthropology in both Social Sciences and Humanities. For instances, archaeology is multi-discipline studies, including translations of ancient inscriptions or literature, which would fall under the category of Languages, like the field in philology. So the part where archaeologists try to translate ancient texts involved philology, hence Humanities, not Social Science. It is the same with ancient or prehistoric objects discovered that involved artwork, eg painting, sculpture, etc, would make archaeology fall under the humanities category, not social science.

For all creationists, and some theists, who may not understand Natural Sciences so well. The theory of Evolution or Evolutionary Biology, like Natural Selection, Mutations, Genetic Drift, etc, is biology, but Social Darwinism has nothing to do with biology or with theory of Evolution.

Social Darwinism is a political and social ideology: Social Darwinism doesn’t even meet the requirements to fall under the Social Science category.

Like I said, Natural Sciences needs to meet certain criteria (eg Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review) to be considered science, but Social Sciences don’t, and Humanities are science at all.

And in Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences, they required evidence - physical evidence - that can observed/detected, quantified, measured and tested.

Can you measure God? Can you observe and test God?

If you answer “no” to the above questions, then God or gods are irrelevant to science, when it come to studying biology or physical cosmology.

This is why the WHO questions is not asked in Physical Sciences or Natural Science, because something like god cannot be observed, measured and tested.

If you want to study God or anything pertaining to God, like religions or religious texts (eg Bible, Qur’an, the Book of the Dead, Veda, or any exegesis literature, etc), then try Theology or try Comparative Religion or Comparative Mythology.

" God or gods are irrelevant to science"

It is another way of saying that Science has no tools to take up "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist", I understand. Right, please?
The proper way into this is the Word of Revelation from G-d on the Messengers/Prophets of G-d, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

" God or gods are irrelevant to science"

It is another way of saying that Science has no tools to take up "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist", I understand. Right, please?
The proper way into this is the Word of Revelation from G-d on the Messengers/Prophets of G-d, I understand. Right, please?

It is the way religious people have used, but it is certainly NOT a scientific method. It is untestable.

The reason science does not have the tools is because religious believers only have vague statements that cannot be tested.

 

[Milton Platt]

God is the author of all truth, and that includes scientific truth. This post is NOT proposing that we should start with the Bible and then go looking for evidence to support it. Scientific Method is fine as it is. What I'm saying is that there is no conflict between those truths that science genuinely comes by and the Creator of the Universe.

For example, we know about the Big Bang. I see no reason not to see the Big Bang as the moment God created the universe. We also know about evolution. I see no reason not to see evolution as God's modus operandi for creating all the various life forms, including humanity.

Come on, folks. It's not like all scientists are atheists.

Yes, not all Christians are creationists. They either ignore, or "interpret" what they read to fit any new thing confirmed by science and ignore the fact that the writers could not possibly have believed what the interpreter believes.

 

[paarsurrey]

G-d's existence

I understand it is an unscientific approach to state that one will believe in G-d only with scientific proofs, that is what the non-believers are doing. Right, please?
The truthful Religion dose not claim it, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[joelr]

In what archaeology is finding out about the history of Israel and in what other sciences are finding out about the origins of the universe and earth and life etc which agree in part with what the Bible tells us. (But of course science is still young and not all the evidence is in)

2 fields, Biblical history and archaeology:


Biblical history (just on Genesis)

"The Enuma Elish (Mesopotamian creation myths) would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.

Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible."

Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

This source uses several Assyriologist who specialize in Mesopotamian writings and the history of the period, Marc Van de Mieroop and Gwendolyn Leick.


Archaeology:

Biblical archaeology shows no evidence of Moses (scholarship is in consensus that Moses is a myth), or Abraham.Exodus is known to be a myth because all the evidence shows early Israelites were coming out of Canaanite society and still had one of their goddesses as the consort of Yahweh.
Solomon and other stories were greatly enlarged, the conquest of Joshua is not historic. Nothing in this field suggests the myths from any society were actually true.

"William Denver, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years-
"The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people."

"We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story."

"The stories of Solomon are larger than life..."
"But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale."

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible


Another scholar, Carol Meyers explains that historical scholars do not consider Moses or Exodus to be historical but obviously the stories have some connection to the origins of the people. She calls them "mnemohistory" and are similar to stories we have created about George Washington. The memories of people and events are augmented and elaborated and maybe even ritualized and in BCE gods were always added to the narrative.
NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS]

History and archaeology are giving no more support to the idea of biblical Gods being real than Hindu, Greek or any other story about Gods. The evidence from these fields completely supports the idea that these are stories created by people.
It's harder to see this from inside the religion because all other myths from the time were outlawed and destroyed over the centuries.
But looking at what we do have from the nearby Canaanite religion, there is little difference. A system of Gods, commandments, temples, animal sacrifice, honor parents, myths, wisdom and so on.
Canaanite Religion

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑

The doctrine of divine inspiration is based on the following premises.

1 Jesus had some sort of divine authority

2 Jesus claimed that “the scriptures” are inspired

3 what Jesus called “the scriptures” corresponds to what we call “the bible”

As Christians we are only committed to “point 1” point 2 and 3 could be historically false and Christianity would not be falsified or affected.

My point is that the bible is not (or shouldn’t be) a corner stone for Christians

But, if you drop the doctrine of divine inspiration, what reason is there to accept 1?

The historical evidence for the resurrection is independent to whether if the doctrine of divine inspiration is true or not.

And if Jesus resurrected then we have good reasons to think that he had some sort of divine authority.

 

[Polymath257]

The historical evidence for the resurrection is independent to whether if the doctrine of divine inspiration is true or not.

And if Jesus resurrected then we have good reasons to think that he had some sort of divine authority.

And by the story in the Bible, this supposed resurrection failed to convince most people who *knew* Jesus prior.

At best, it was rumor. At worst, a lie. Those who wrote about it made the career about it. Not exactly reliable.

I get a more convincing claim that Julius Caesar saw the god Pan jump across the Rubicon. At least, in that case, we get it from the hand of the person who experienced it.

I don't believe that story either, by the way.

 

[paarsurrey]

The historical evidence for the resurrection is independent to whether if the doctrine of divine inspiration is true or not.

And if Jesus resurrected then we have good reasons to think that he had some sort of divine authority.

" if Jesus resurrected".

There are clues very much in the NT Bible that Jesus did not resurrect, he did not die on the Cross, he just migrated from the Judea, I understand.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

And by the story in the Bible, this supposed resurrection failed to convince most people who *knew* Jesus prior.

At best, it was rumor. At worst, a lie. Those who wrote about it made the career about it. Not exactly reliable.

I get a more convincing claim that Julius Caesar saw the god Pan jump across the Rubicon. At least, in that case, we get it from the hand of the person who experienced it.

I don't believe that story either, by the way.

I agree with one here, please.

Regards

 

[leroy]

And by the story in the Bible, this supposed resurrection failed to convince most people who *knew* Jesus prior.

At best, it was rumor. At worst, a lie. Those who wrote about it made the career about it. Not exactly reliable.

I get a more convincing claim that Julius Caesar saw the god Pan jump across the Rubicon. At least, in that case, we get it from the hand of the person who experienced it.

I don't believe that story either, by the way.

That is irrelevant to the main point that I made earlier (an relevant to the OP), which is that the doctrine of inspiration is not the cornerstone of the Christian faith………implying that even if you find a mistake in the bible, it wouldn’t follow that Christianity is wrong.

 

[leroy]

" if Jesus resurrected".

There are clues very much in the NT Bible that Jesus did not resurrect, he did not die on the Cross, he just migrated from the Judea, I understand.
Right, please?

Regards

So you agree that it is a historical fact that Jesus appeared alive after he was judged and condemned to crucifixion? (regardless if he actually died on the cross or not)

 

[Polymath257]

That is irrelevant to the main point that I made earlier (an relevant to the OP), which is that the doctrine of inspiration is not the cornerstone of the Christian faith………implying that even if you find a mistake in the bible, it wouldn’t follow that Christianity is wrong.

And that very much depends on which branch of Christianity you adhere to. For some, it is a cornerstone. For others, not so much.

 

[paarsurrey]

So you agree that it is a historical fact that Jesus appeared alive after he was judged and condemned to crucifixion? (regardless if he actually died on the cross or not)

I presently talked about the clues that are very much in the Bible, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[leroy]

And that very much depends on which branch of Christianity you adhere to. For some, it is a cornerstone. For others, not so much.

SURE, my point is that it shouldn’t be.

 

[Polymath257]

SURE, my point is that it shouldn’t be.

And that amounts to an outsider's squabble to me.